Sorry I can't force myself to watch a piece of garbage like that just to see the poorly animated characters "pop out" at me.
I prefer depth and detail, 3D that enhances the experience like The Hobbit.
You can dress a turd up in the finest clothes and it's still a turd. I jut wasn't impressed with it.
And there's nothing "wrong with my eyes" that's a ridiculous statement.

You don't need to be impressed with it. To each their own.

But to call the 3D crap when the 3D is generally considered some of the best use of foreground parallax means either you have an agenda such as starting a depth vs pop out argument or either your eyes or your TV just aren't up to par, however I don't know enough about Vizio to comment on Vizio performance to know if something just wasn't working right on your TV. The popouts should be on par (extend out of the screen) with the "cod fish" scene from Under the Sea. I also had plenty of depth on my setup on par with all of my animated Disney films. I do agree the quality of animation is lower, but you should have already known that going in from user comments.

BTW.... I prefer depth over pop out any day of the week, but I can still admit Sammy 2 was something to marvel about even if Pixar/Disney 3D is more of my cup of tea.

I judge a movie on many aspects. Sammy does not have a good story, it's not original, but the 3d makes up for it, in my mind. Avatar had bad writing(typical Cameron) and bad acting(not a fan of Worthington), but the visuals and 3D were amazing, so it's worth the price of admission, imo. Just my $.02

I have a few of the Pixar 3D movies (Up, Cars 2 and Monster Inc.) and none of them are what I'd call underwhelming (Harry Potter Deathly Hallows certainly is though).

Maybe if the animation in Sammy had been of the level of a Pixar movie I would have appreciated the pop out effects and such but it isn't, and the quality isn't there. Yeah, lots of things "pop out" of the screen at you, and that's sweet if that's what you think of when you say "strong 3D". It isn't for me. Strong 3D should be a clever blend of depth and pop outs (minimal pop outs that make sense and add to the experience rather than just popping out for the sake of it, Harold and Kumar being the exception as it's almost a send up of the 3D craze).

I took no stabs at anyone, just said it's the last time I trust the hyperbole coming from this forum. And again, if the movie is garbage what does it matter how" strong" the 3D is?

3D seems to me to be pretty subjective and varies by the person and the setup so for someone to say "something is wrong with your eyes" because I wasn't impressed with the shiny, poorly animated turd that is Sammy 2 then that person is the one "taking stabs" I'm merely expressing my displeasure and mistrust of the recommendations that led me to blind buy it, albeit in a slightly snarky way, but that's subjective as well.

I apologize as I should of been a little more clear with my statement, and again this is only my point of view.

3d that only has depth is just like watching a 2d movie with only one eye.

As a consumer I fail to be impressed when I work my ass off to afford these 3d movies to begin with only to find my self watching a 2d movie with sunglasses on.

I totally agree about Disney/Pixar having amazing animation/visuals/story's however that sure as hell does not justify me paying $8-$12 more for their, dare I say it again underwhelming 3d. I do own almost all Disney 3d efforts to date and I love them all.

That being said I love when a 3d movie has popouts even more, spy kids game over 3d imo was absolutley amazing but the story made me sick lol.

Last time I listen to you guys! This movie was crap and the 3D was crap. This one is going to Hastings tomorrow to be sold for store credit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SonOfArathorn

Brand new M series Vizio 70".

Sorry I can't force myself to watch a piece of garbage like that just to see the poorly animated characters "pop out" at me.
I prefer depth and detail, 3D that enhances the experience like The Hobbit.
You can dress a turd up in the finest clothes and it's still a turd. I jut wasn't impressed with it.
And there's nothing "wrong with my eyes" that's a ridiculous statement.

Otherwise, to say the 3D wasn't up to par in Turtle Tales 2 is like saying "the 3D in Avatar is a poor example of 3D".
Keeping in mind, strong 3D consists of 3D layers that have significant distance between them, to the point they pop after keeping one eye closed as a test, and then having both eyes open. Also to check the double image blur without glasses on. The blurrier the picture, the more likely the 3D is strong as you probably knew.

I have a few of the Pixar 3D movies (Up, Cars 2 and Monster Inc.) and none of them are what I'd call underwhelming (Harry Potter Deathly Hallows certainly is though).

Maybe if the animation in Sammy had been of the level of a Pixar movie I would have appreciated the pop out effects and such but it isn't, and the quality isn't there. Yeah, lots of things "pop out" of the screen at you, and that's sweet if that's what you think of when you say "strong 3D". It isn't for me. Strong 3D should be a clever blend of depth and pop outs (minimal pop outs that make sense and add to the experience rather than just popping out for the sake of it, Harold and Kumar being the exception as it's almost a send up of the 3D craze).

I took no stabs at anyone, just said it's the last time I trust the hyperbole coming from this forum. And again, if the movie is garbage what does it matter how" strong" the 3D is?

3D seems to me to be pretty subjective and varies by the person and the setup so for someone to say "something is wrong with your eyes" because I wasn't impressed with the shiny, poorly animated turd that is Sammy 2 then that person is the one "taking stabs" I'm merely expressing my displeasure and mistrust of the recommendations that led me to blind buy it, albeit in a slightly snarky way, but that's subjective as well.

You raise some interesting issues. I'll throw out a few thoughts as well.

1. Sammy and Sammy 2 have excellent depth strength and roundness and pop-outs, but the story and characters are so bad, they have zero replay value for me. I was pretty amazed by the quality of the 3D the first time that I saw Sammy 1, but I find the "shininess" of 3D has now worn off. I've reached the point where nice-looking 3D shapes are not sufficient for long-term, quality entertainment. The kicker is that it can't look bad either. It has to be quality 3D, and it has to boost an already decent/entertaining plot. Doing both results in an outstanding experience. Doing just one is a disappointment.

2. Opinions on the artistic use and shape of 3D are highly variable. As far recommendations go, the only person I can really trust is myself (watching a 3D trailer), and maybe a few other members who I think have similar specific tastes as me. A lot of posts in this forum tend to fawn over nearly everything 3D and make it sound like every new movie is either a new level of reference or underrated 3D of the year, while most people in my daily life seem to be completely ignorant and/or dismissive of 3D, stemming back to one or two bad experiences that they or one of their friends had several years ago.

3. I think people put way too much value on what kind of setup they're using. To my eyes, the shape of identical 3D content looks pretty much the same on all modern setups. The only thing that will vary is screen size, viewing distance, and calibration settings. Assuming one is not watching on a miserably dim, uncalibrated display, the shape of 3D is mostly dependent on how the artists create the content. The real difference in consumer opinions is based on what people expect and want from 3D and their individual reference for what is "good" before they start watching the movie.

4. There's no reason to tell someone that something is anatomically wrong with their eyes unless they are missing binocular vision and 3D looks like a blurry version of 2D or they are having significant pain and discomfort with 3D or watching 3D screws up their "normal" vision or something along those lines that warrants an eye exam by a health professional. People can watch the same thing and have different emotional reactions to it. This is art.

3. I think people put way too much value on what kind of setup they're using. To my eyes, the shape of identical 3D content looks pretty much the same on all modern setups. The only thing that will vary is screen size, viewing distance, and calibration settings. Assuming one is not watching on a miserably dim, uncalibrated display, the shape of 3D is mostly dependent on how the artists create the content. The real difference in consumer opinions is based on what people expect and want from 3D and their individual reference for what is "good" before they start watching the movie.

I have to disagree with this one particular point. Quality of set up plays a huge role in overall quality of 3D viewing experience. I have a 65HX950 and a 65VT30. I can tell you the VT30 can not even compare with the Sony in terms of sharpness, brightness and overall depth as everything looks flatter on the Panny. Before I settled on the 65HX950, I had a 65VT50 which i returned as it did not offer any perceived improvement over the 65VT30. I then purchased a 65ES8000 which by far had the best 3D image of any of the sets I had or currently have. I returned the Samsung as I did not like the edge lit tech and the edge bleed and flashlighting that comes with those type of LED tvs.

But watching Sammy 2 on the Sony full array local dimming is a dramatic difference from the Panny plasma. Yes, the shapes and separation may technically be identical, but the overall experience can still be quite different. I definitely can see how the movie may not have the same "wow" factor on say a Vizio LED compared to a flagship LED from Samsung or Sony or a 3D projector. In technical terms, everything may be the same, but visually speaking when doing direct comparisons, they are not always equal.

I have to disagree with this one particular point. Quality of set up plays a huge role in overall quality of 3D viewing experience. I have a 65HX950 and a 65VT30. I can tell you the VT30 can not even compare with the Sony in terms of sharpness, brightness and overall depth as everything looks flatter on the Panny. Before I settled on the 65HX950, I had a 65VT50 which i returned as it did not offer any perceived improvement over the 65VT30. I then purchased a 65ES8000 which by far had the best 3D image of any of the sets I had or currently have. I returned the Samsung as I did not like the edge lit tech and the edge bleed and flashlighting that comes with those type of LED tvs.

But watching Sammy 2 on the Sony full array local dimming is a dramatic difference from the Panny plasma. Yes, the shapes and separation may technically be identical, but the overall experience can still be quite different. I definitely can see how the movie may not have the same "wow" factor on say a Vizio LED compared to a flagship LED from Samsung or Sony or a 3D projector. In technical terms, everything may be the same, but visually speaking when doing direct comparisons, they are not always equal.

However, unless the display is very poorly calibrated or very dim at its maximal brightness (like some bad theaters), the difference that makes on overall volume is minimal, compared to the effect the artist has.

Another factor is that each individual is probably watching the majority of his 3D on his one display. It's unlikely that a display incapable of producing nice-looking volume from an nWave BD3D is capable of producing better or equal volume from a Pixar BD3D.

In the majority of cases, I think artist creation and consumer expectations have a much larger impact on consumer satisfaction for a particular movie than 3DTV model/brand. With the exception of some early active LCD models with brightness and ghosting issues, most displays are pretty decent for playing 3D content.

Forgive the overlong explanation below, but I still believe 3D can be measured objectively without emotion or opinion, like measuring picture resolution. It's either Subtle 3D, medium or strong 3D the same way it's either 480p, 720p, 1080p (not counting 4K yet) resolution. Saying "weak, good or awesome 3D" has the same idea in mind, but can confuse those not familiar with the standard the person is measuring the 3D by.

When we supporters say the 3D in Turtle's Tale 2 is some of the best we've ever seen, most of us, including myself, are not judging the movie itself, but the measure of the 3D itself based on previous experiences of less powerful 3D. Of course not every shot is given the same depth of 3D, but for most shots, Turtle's Tale 2 has strong 3D compared to a more mild 3D title like Finding Nemo 3D (regardless of whether one film was made with 3D in mind or not, we're measuring the objective 3D strength itself, not the creative, subjective framing/composition of the 3D shots).

3D strength automatically includes pop outs, depth and dimension since they're all grounded on the foundation of stereo 3D sight versus two dimensional flat sight.

A 3D image having stronger 3D the farther it is away from a 2D image by comparison, is an objective measurement. How flat or how dimensional the 3D is, as an observation of a measurement, not an opinion if we're using a standard guide to measure it.

Much like measuring distance with a meter stick or 12" ruler. The measurement is either 9" or it's not. Opinion has no impact on the reality. It's either subtle 3D (closer to 2D) or it's not. The challenge is explaining it clearly and objectively.

3D Strength is comparable to the measurements of Resolution Strength, Sound Clarity and Motion Fluidity.

Motion Quality:
Is it running at 8 frames per second, 12, 24, 25, 30, 29.97, 48, 60 or 120 frames per second? "This animation is very fluid" may be referring to the less choppy scrolling of 30 fps (the standard of Computer Animation) versus 8 frames per second (as seen in some older animated TV cartoon shows).
A better way to express it would be "Compared to 8 fps, 30 fps looks smoother, more fluid".

Image Resolution Quality:
1080p (1920x1080) appears much sharper than 720p or 480p HD. That is an objective observation to any normal functioning eyes. So when people say, "This 4K picture resolution is awesome", emotional reaction aside, they're often referring the enhanced sharpness compared to their previous experiences.

Sound Quality:
Back in the days of Cassette tapes, the sound quality included some audible noise, much like when a vinyl record player starts with a moment of silence, we can hear the crackling of the needle audible in the speaker as the record turns. Once the music started, most of us couldn't hear the crackling, even though it is still there.
Then came CD quality, which to this day, is pretty much the current optimal output/version of sound, offering the sharpest, clearest (free of sound noise), aside from the creative source that put that sound to CD.
"This sounds great" is easily blurred with the creative music unless it's specified that we're referring to the quality of the sound itself.

Three Dimensional Quality:
Based on most human experiences in daily life, using two normal functioning eyes, most of us can see in stereo 3D and our experience will rarely get better as we get older, unless we can sharpen it with 20/20 vision, which would be more aligned with resolution than 3D. Bottom line being, our stereo 3D perception of the world is consistent. Taking that basic foundation of stereo sight, we know that objects closer up have stronger dimension, while objects further away look more two dimensional based on our limited interaxial distance between our eyes.
If we measure 3D in a movie based on our daily experience of stereo 3D sight, we'll know a standard can be used that most of us can relate to.

The real trick is clearly describing what we're comparing 3D to, then being able to let others know we're not just talking about pop outs, but the 3D strength in general, including the 3D layers' depth, and finally what we're comparing it to. That will lead to less confusion when others read our posts on how we objectively measured the 3D, not what we thought about the 3D or how we felt about the movie and how it affected our subjective 3D experience.

I also often use the words weak, good or awesome 3D which can be confusing and sound opinionated, when I'm really referring to the terms subtle, medium or strong 3D based on daily stereo 3D sight and the strongest examples of 3D in motion pictures.

I went overboard here and got carried away. Sorry about that.

Let me know what I overlooked in that explanation if you find something. Thanks. I don't mind learning new things.

" I definitely can see how the movie may not have the same "wow" factor on say a Vizio LED compared to a flagship LED from Samsung or Sony or a 3D projector"

Here's the thing, nearly every 3D movie I've watched on my 70" Vizio M has been amazing, no ghosting or crosstalk to speak of (smidges here and there) and excellent overall PQ (probably due to professional calibration) Sammy 2 looked good, stuff popped out of the screen, depth was good and you're all right, maybe the total crapness of the movie itself colors my opinion of the 3D but I just didn't come away as impressed as I had been with other movies.

One thing is for sure, I will not be recommending that others waste their money on it.

" I definitely can see how the movie may not have the same "wow" factor on say a Vizio LED compared to a flagship LED from Samsung or Sony or a 3D projector"

Here's the thing, nearly every 3D movie I've watched on my 70" Vizio M has been amazing, no ghosting or crosstalk to speak of (smidges here and there) and excellent overall PQ (probably due to professional calibration) Sammy 2 looked good, stuff popped out of the screen, depth was good and you're all right, maybe the total crapness of the movie itself colors my opinion of the 3D but I just didn't come away as impressed as I had been with other movies.

One thing is for sure, I will not be recommending that others waste their money on it.

No problem.
Sorry you felt that way about the 3D experience here. Emotion and opinion aside, TT's 2's 3D is a strong 3D showcase for 3D.

Sure, depth strength (parallax) can be measured objectively, using some tools that only flimmakers own. Alternatively, anyone can subjectively "eye ball" it and give it a rating as strong, medium, or weak. One person's "strong" is always going to be another person's "weak" though, just based on past experience and personal expectations.

It is tough to use our real life visual system as a comparison for what 3D should look like because no 3D movies are orthostereoscopic, meaning what we see on screen is not the same shape, size, depth and perspective of what we see in the real world. Orthoplastic, meaning real-life shape and roundness but not size, is the best we can hope for (and what filmmakers can aim for). This is also where art comes into play. Many viewers value other things about 3D movies besides orthoscopy, and very very few viewers actually have a critical eye for orthoscopy. Although most people can pick out Clash of the Titans as bad and Avatar as good, standards and opinions are much more variable in that mid-range.

If all you want to know about is depth strength (which usually but doesn't necessarily correlate with orthoscopy), maybe ask, "How strong was the 3D parallax or image separation?" People might respond to specific technical terms with less vague and emotion-based answers.

Sure, depth strength (parallax) can be measured objectively, using some tools that only flimmakers own. Alternatively, anyone can subjectively "eye ball" it and give it a rating as strong, medium, or weak. One person's "strong" is always going to be another person's "weak" though, just based on past experience and personal expectations.

It is tough to use our real life visual system as a comparison for what 3D should look like because no 3D movies are orthostereoscopic, meaning what we see on screen is not the same shape, size, depth and perspective of what we see in the real world. Orthoplastic, meaning real-life shape and roundness but not size, is the best we can hope for (and what filmmakers can aim for). This is also where art comes into play. Many viewers value other things about 3D movies besides orthoscopy, and very very few viewers actually have a critical eye for orthoscopy. Although most people can pick out Clash of the Titans as bad and Avatar as good, standards and opinions are much more variable in that mid-range.

If all you want to know about is depth strength (which usually but doesn't necessarily correlate with orthoscopy), maybe ask, "How strong was the 3D parallax or image separation?" People might respond to specific technical terms with less vague and emotion-based answers.

I see what you're saying BleedOrange11.
There are a lot of different preferences for what one person feels is strong 3D, medium and mild 3D. And the first 3D viewing and response to the 3D in a movie is not always the most accurate as you suggest, based on the viewing source (Theater projection reliability vs home 3DTV set up), and opinion of the movie itself affecting the 3D experience.

I know I've changed my view of 3D for a movie in the past a few times after watching it on a different source and comparing it to stronger 3D movies that came out later.

For practical purposes, comparing 3D in one film to another, even through eyeballing it up, is still a mostly reliable way of gauging the general 3D layer strength before seeing it.

As more strong 3D examples fill the 3D library, our examples of what to compare 3D to change also.

Well I was at sam's club today and saw a double feature of sammy1 and 2 for 10.00. I got real excited needless to say. I got it hoping that both were 2 and 3d together, needless to say only sammy2 was 3d. Still thought it was a good deal though.